Search results

The use of covariance structure modeling is explored as a means of moving toward a resolution of the debate over the antecedents of executive compensation. The major strength of this methodology is that it enables researchers to measure the effects of unobserved factors on measured variables. It is suggested that covariance structure modeling is a promising way of studying the effect of institutional isomorphism on executive compensation. The popular business press has questioned repeatedly the justification for and the performance effects of prevailing executive compensation systems (Crystal, 1988; Loomis, 1982; Patton, 1985). These articles argue that executives are more interested in creating wealth for themselves than for stockholders. They also underscore the absence of an obvious link between executive compensation and firm performance. Recent academic research on executive compensation adopts an agency perspective that emphasizes potential conflicts of interest between managers and stockholders. It contends that, in the absence of effective disciplining and monitoring systems, executive compensation plans may direct managers' efforts toward personal wealth enhancement to the detriment of firm value (Baumol, 1958; Berle & Means, 1932). In response, scholars have urged that executive compensation plans contain monetary incentives that only accrue to executives when shareholder wealth is maximized (Kerr, 1985; Rappaport, 1983; Tehranian & Waegelein, 1985). However, designing compensation systems that effectively align the interests of managers and stockholders requires a knowledge of the role and effect of relevant driving forces on compensation. Statistical research on executive compensation has been guided predominantly by a search for tangible, observable determinants (Ciscel & Carroll, 1980), examples of which have been firm size or growth rate (Baumol, 1967; Marris, 1963), inter‐firm and inter‐in‐dustry differences (Coughlan & Schmidt, 1985), and performance (Murphy, 1986). The emphasis on such tangible explanations is not surprising given the overwhelming use of econometric techniques, such as ordinary least squares regression (Ciscel & Carroll, 1980; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1988), logistic regression (Walking & Long, 1984), time series analysis (Murphy, 1985), and event studies (Brickley, Bhagat & Lease, 1985; Coughlan & Schmidt, 1985; Tehranian & Waegelein, 1985). This paper argues that the focus on tangible, observable variables by compensation researchers is a methodologically ‐ driven practice that constrains theory building and testing. As a result, we may have ignored interesting and relevant theoretical frameworks for the study of executive compensation. We also have overlooked the use of analytical techniques that allow us to examine the role of potentially relevant latent constructs. In this paper, we will describe and illustrate the use of covariance structure modeling for the study of institutional pressures on executive compensation.

This paper examines whether financial buyers are more likely to initiate takeovers of inefficient firms. We show that they indeed are and thus conclude that takeovers by financial buyers play a potentially beneficial role in the allocation of corporate assets in the US. economy. Our analysis of determinants of takeovers initiated by financial buyers uses an application of the methodology developed in Trimbath, Frydman and Frydman (2001). In order to illustrate efficiency enhancements introduced by financial buyers, we select Forstmann Little’s acquisition of General Instrument for a brief case study. We show that their aggressive programs of cost management substantially improved the efficiency of General Instrument. Moreover, it allowed General Instrument to expand research and development to become the global leader in high definition television.

Boards presently are considered the most critical component in improving corporate governance (CG). Board diversity is increasingly being recommended as a tool for enhancing firm performance. Academic research and regulatory action regarding board diversity are focussed mainly on gender and ethnic composition of boards. However, the perspective of board members on board diversity and its impact is mostly missing. Moreover, while strategic leadership perspective suggests that a broader set of upper echelon’s characteristics may shape their actions, empirical evidence investigating the impact of less-explored attributes of diversity is almost non-existent. While the research on the input–output relationship between board diversity and firm performance remains equivocal, an intervening relationship between board diversity and board effectiveness needs to be understood. The purpose of this paper is to address all three limitations and explore the subject from board members’ perspective.

The paper presents the findings of qualitative, exploratory research conducted by interviewing 42 board members of FTSE 350 companies. The data are analysed thematically.

The findings of the research suggest that board members of FTSE 350 companies consider the diversity of functional experience to be a critical requirement for boards’ role-effectiveness. Functionally diverse boards manage external dependencies more effectively and challenge assumptions of the executive more efficiently, thus improving CG. The findings significantly contribute to the literature on board diversity, as well as to strategic leadership theory and other applicable theories. The research is conducted with a relatively small but elite and difficult to approach set of 42 board members of FTSE 350 companies.

The paper makes a unique and significant contribution to praxis by presenting the perspective of practitioners of CG – board members. The findings may encourage board nomination committees to seek board diversity beyond the gender and ethnic characteristics of directors. The findings may also be relevant for policy formulation, as they indicate that functionally diverse boards have improved effectiveness in a range of board roles.

Board diversity is about building a board that accurately reflects the make-up of the population and stakeholders of the society where the company operates. The aim of board diversity is to cultivate a broad range of attributes and perspectives that reflects real-world demographics as boards need to continue to earn their “licence to operate in society” as organisations have a responsibility to multiple constituents and stakeholders, including the community and the wider society within which they exist. Building social capital through diversity has value in the wider context of modern society and achieving social justice.

The paper makes an original and unique contribution to strategic leadership theory by strengthening the argument of the theory. The paper explores beyond widely researched attributes of gender and ethnicity on boards and explores the impact of a less-researched characteristic of directors – their functional experience. Moreover, the paper opens the “black box” of CG – boards, and presents the perspectives of board members. The findings indicate that board members in FTSE 350 boards define diversity more broadly than academics and regulatory agencies often do.

Previous studies have examined the relationship between institutional investors and corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagement primarily for the case of developed nations. The purpose of this paper is to look at the association between different ownership categories and CSR spending of selected Indian firms within an emerging market context.

This study examines the motivations that guide the CSR strategies of different ownership groups. Random-effects Tobit panel regression is performed on a panel of BSE-listed non-financial Indian firms panel comprising of 5,313 firm year observations over a six-year period (2014-2019).

Heterogeneous behavior of institutional investors is revealed through the study. Different categories of institutional investors have different preferences for CSR spending of a firm. Lending institutes and foreign institutional investors (FIIs) are seen to support the CSR investments. However, mutual fund investors are seen to not influence the CSR spend by the firms. Further, the results show that family ownership, measured in terms of family shareholding, positively moderates the lending institutions and mutual funds toward CSR and does not impact the FIIs decision regarding the CSR investments.

The analysis has implications for both institutional investors and multinational firms. In the emerging market context, managers and owners who target long term strategies such as CSR, will benefit from increasing shareholdings of creditors (lending institutions). They can also take steps to improve their transparency and corporate governance structure so as to attract the foreign institutional investments.

Managers cannot ignore the heterogeneities of institutional investors in their investment decisions and hence CSR decisions need to align with those of different types of investors. This study adds to the existing literature by offering new empirical insights from the perspective of an emerging market, India.